W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2001

Re: graphs are sets?! (was: rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about (was: Issues list update/status?))

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 11:20:53 +0100
Message-ID: <3BC2CF85.2010009@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org


Pat Hayes wrote:

[...]


>>
>>  [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-of-statements


Not really; this was intended to represent a different issue - this is the old 
statement v stating debate which I'm not inclined to open up now.

The issue

   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-graph

is the one I intended to cover this.

However, I also can recall no formal decision on the set/bag question.  The 
general direction of this thread seems sensible.

I appologies for getting behind on email last week as a result of communication 
difficulties.  Has anyone proposed some test cases.

Brian


Brian




>>
>> and it is under the category Issues Awaiting Consideration.
>>
>>>  The MT would give the same interpretation for equivalent arcs in a
>>>  multigraph, wouldn't it?
>>
>>
>> Pat - does the MT address [1]?
> 
> 
> No, it has no opinion. It would give the same meaning to a graph with a 
> repeated triple as it would to the one with the repetition removed. I 
> would vote for bags on the grounds that they are harmless and put less 
> of a burden on implementors, but that's me talking, not the MT.
> 
> Pat
> 
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 06:25:14 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:40:58 EDT